Source: de Jong 1981

de Jong, Jan Willem. "Fa-hsien and Buddhist Texts in Ceylon." JPTS 9 (1981): 105-116.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

De Jong follows GSZ in identifying Zhisheng as the actual translator of the text, and the four-member team that was responsible for the full process of translation. He notes that "Buddhajīva undertook this translation four months after having arrived at [Yangzhou]. His knowledge of Chinese must have been practically nil. His task must have been to read aloud the text in its original wording. [Zhisheng] then translated the text orally..."

Edit

109-112

 De Jong follows GSZ in identifying Zhisheng as the actual translator of the text, and the four-member team that was responsible for the full process of translation. He notes that "Buddhajiva undertook this translation four months after having arrived at [Yangzhou]. His knowledge of Chinese must have been practically nil. His task must have been to read aloud the text in its original wording. [Zhisheng] then translated the text orally..." *Buddhajiva, 佛陀什 Daosheng, 竺道生 Huiyan, 慧嚴 Zhisheng 智勝 T1421; 彌沙塞部和醯五分律

De Jong notes that the title has been variously reconstructed: *Saṃyuktasañcaya-piṭaka (Legge), *Saṃyuka-piṭaka (Kolmaš), *Kṣudraka-sūtra (HBGR Répertoire). He gives a summary of the contents of the text. “The stories told by the seventeen pretas may have been part of a Pretavastu and this probably explains the title *Kṣudrakapiṭaka. The story of King Udayana does not seem to occur elsewhere....In any case, there is no reason to doubt that this text was brought back from Ceylon by [Faxian] and translated by him.” De Jong examines the small number of transliterations in the text, and concludes that most were already in use in China, making it impossible to determine on their basis the language of the source text.

Edit

105-107

 De Jong notes that the title has been variously reconstructed: *Samyuktasancaya-pitaka (Legge), *Samyuka-pitaka (Kolmas), *Ksudraka-sutra (HBGR Repertoire). He gives a summary of the contents of the text. “The stories told by the seventeen pretas may have been part of a Pretavastu and this probably explains the title *Ksudrakapitaka. The story of King Udayana does not seem to occur elsewhere....In any case, there is no reason to doubt that this text was brought back from Ceylon by [Faxian] and translated by him.” De Jong examines the small number of transliterations in the text, and concludes that most were already in use in China, making it impossible to determine on their basis the language of the source text. T0745; 佛說雜藏經